There are documents that give the president dictatorial powers in the case of an “emergency.” And we know who decides when there’s an emergency. From John and Nisha Whitehea at rutherford.org:
“Rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”—Justice Neil Gorsuch
We have become a nation in a permanent state of emergency.
Power-hungry and lawless, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers and justify all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.
COVID-19, for example, served as the driving force behind what Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch characterized as “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”
In a statement attached to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Mayorkas, a case that challenged whether the government could continue to use it pandemic powers even after declaring the public health emergency over, Gorsuch provided a catalog of the many ways in which the government used COVID-19 to massively overreach its authority and suppress civil liberties:
“Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.
You are suggesting tinkering with a system that far beyond the reach of individuals of liberty to attain any kind of achievement leading to the result of liberty. The constitution was an attempt at a contract enforceable against the government. It is now used in reverse successfully to enforce tyranny. The first president to abridge the constitution was the first president. Resistance to his authoritarian moves landed people in prison, threatened them with execution and removed several guaranteed rights of the citizens. Although many complained, it was never reversed and every administration, congress and judiciary has moved in the same direction since. There has been no aversion in their course. Attempting to change course by electing new leaders or convincing any in power to give it up has never resulted in regaining any liberty.
Chad Chadburn